Re: [v6ops] IPv6 addressing: Gaps? (draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 18 February 2021 22:10 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FF2F3A190A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:10:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H-inANYDUeWO for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:10:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AED433A1909 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:10:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:d092:11d0:9223:9b8f] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:d092:11d0:9223:9b8f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E072328029A; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 22:10:08 +0000 (UTC)
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <36ba7456-210c-0626-5ec6-147538e49e5d@si6networks.com> <37012643-4F63-4FB6-979E-7C3BDD13DCD0@fugue.com> <fbfd05eb-3a22-8e4d-4b82-44f70f6121b2@si6networks.com> <070854A8-AE3A-46F9-B894-E524A723B9CE@fugue.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <e8c2d639-8258-3c51-d3aa-00fdc7bdcb03@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 19:09:54 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <070854A8-AE3A-46F9-B894-E524A723B9CE@fugue.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/_4UGDZU3OP1w63SeF1Toty1_piU>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6 addressing: Gaps? (draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 22:10:14 -0000

Hi, Ted,

On 18/2/21 18:53, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2021, at 4:32 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com 
> <mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>> wrote:
>> This text predates draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope which effectively 
>> does try to formally update the scope of ULAs.
> 
> I know you haven’t asked for a call for adoption yet, but it’s pretty 
> clear that you’re in the rough on adding a “local” scope

The intent was not to add a local scope, but to fix the inconsistency 
among RFC4291, RFC4193, and RFC4007.

It could very well mean adding a local scope (even if it's ULA 
specific), obsoleting RFC4007, or any other option.

Right now, the "IPv6 Scoped Addressing Architecture" (RFC4007) disagress 
with the definition of ULAs as "global scope" (as per RFC4193/RFC4291).

Yes, networks do not break down as a result of this (it's unlikely that 
that might happen as a result of an architecture document which, by 
definition, it's going to be rather abstract).

But we already have existing cases (e.g. Python's library) where they 
solve our spec inconsistencies in their own way. And, certainly, we 
cannot really offer authoritative responses, because we have different 
specs arguing in different ways.

Given that we'll likely have IPv6 for a while, I would understand if 
people have different ideas regarding how inconsistencies can be solved 
(e.g. "new scope" vs "obsolete RFC4007"). But IMHO it would be awkward 
for folks to argue in favor of keeping conflicting specs.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492